I've been writing about political economy and foreign affairs since 2008, first from Forbes' New York offices, then as a freelancer with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting in South Asia, and now as a freelancer back in New York. I focus on the way economic forces--poverty, development, energy, natural resources, corruption, crime--shape national and international politics. What excites me is the possibility that an economic approach, by shedding new light on old problems, can point us to innovative solutions.

Axe's Super Bowl Ad Fail: When Sexism Doesn't Sell

Last night, during the Super Bowl, I watched the ad for Axe, the men’s grooming line. It featured a young woman saved from a shark by a handsome lifeguard, who subsequently ditches that lifeguard when a (male) astronaut turns up. “Nothing beats an astronaut,” the ad concludes.

The ad promotes a contest Axe is running to coincide with the launch of their new line of ‘Apollo’ products. The contest, open to anyone 18 and over, promises to send 22 winners to space. It’s a pretty simple message, but the ad campaign does a terrible job conveying it.

For one thing, of the 20 fans I was watching the game with, no one figured out that Axe was promoting a contest, as opposed to just their deodorant.

The ads fit in with Axe’s overall brand, of course, which is all about the prospect that using Axe will make men more attractive to women.

But while men are the only people who use Axe products, they are not the only people who can be astronauts, or the only people who may enter this contest. Women can enter too, and nowhere in these ads (or on the contest website) do we see a female astronaut. Even the tagline “Leave a man; return a hero” gives the impression that the contest is open to men only.

I explained the contest rules, and noted the sexism of this marketing, to my Super Bowl companions. Several people in the room said I was wrong, that with advertising like this and a men’s brand like Axe, the contest had to only be open to men. Some glibly suggested that a women’s brand could sponsor its own contest for female competitors.

>>Disclaimer: This is a product for guys that is running a competition aimed at attracting male consumers (probably in that lucrative 18-25 range). If you are not eligible to sign up, I’m sorry.I didn’t make up the rules.

So here’s the thing: The sexism of the marketing is offensive and damaging, given the gender gap in science and engineering and the discrimination women pursuing scientific careers already face. When an ad like the lifeguard spot airs in a time slot as high profile as the Super Bowl, and when a publication as prominent as WIRED suggests that space travel is for men, it matters.

But this campaign also fails as advertising. The product being advertised is the contest, but the ads discourage half the target audience (that is, people eligible to enter) from applying, and leave other viewers unaware that there’s a contest on at all.

When I spoke to Axe’s U.S. spokesperson Adam Bricault, he said, “We think the message is getting out there that this is for guys and girls.” He then claimed ignorance of the weeks-old stories, like WIRED’s, suggesting otherwise, but said he would look into requesting a correction now that I had alerted him.

It’s possible that Unilever, which owns Axe, is that incompetent when it comes to managing press coverage. It’s possible that they simply didn’t realize how off-putting the campaign would be to female competitors and are blindsided by the backlash. It’s even conceivable that the company is allowing misconceptions about who is eligible for the contest to circulate, with the intention of having a pool of male winners.

However you look at it – stupid, incompetent or dishonest – this campaign is remarkably bad business.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Great to see this article in Forbes. It is about time we show both producers and consumers that this campaign is crossing a line and that sexism – no matter how exaggerated and meant to humor – is unacceptable. A bad way to go for Unilever, but also a bad way to go for society, that seems to accept this concealed gender discrimination without any critic.

I researched the Axe Apollo competition T&C’s, finding that Unilever IS explicitly excluding women from participating in six countries. In Mexico, Russia, Ukraine, Kuwait, UAE and Indonesia the rules explicitly state that only men can participate… This is not ON the edge of discrimation. It is definitely OVER.

Wow…so Forbes is worried about sexism in the ad agency world. The entire magazine and Forbes was based on Male subscriptions. Now we have a crybaby whiner who feels the ad is sexism. Lets keep in mind that the majority of ads on TV depict a hapless male having to be educated in some way, shape, or form by a female. Whether its not using the right cleaner on the table or confusion about household products the woman gets the upper hand by being smart. Relax …the rest of the world felt it was an okay ad.

I’m not sure what the subscription base of Forbes has to do with whether this campaign is or isn’t sexist.

To your point about ads on TV depicting men as hapless and women as housekeepers, I’m not a fan of those either. Tide aired one such ad during the Super Bowl, I did not like it, and I said so on Twitter where I was commenting live on the game. Gender stereotyping is always bad, no matter whom it’s happening to.

What, Axe runs a shallow, sexist ad campaign? We should be shocked? :) They have cornered the market on that space.

Maybe we should be thankful that they didn’t hire the GoDaddy nerd actor for a redo of their “Angels” commercial. I guess the astronaut campaign shows that they learned one thing: doing ads that shows incredibly hot women drawn to a wimpy loser who uses Axe products conveys one key message: “Axe is the product favored by wimpy losers.” Hardly the ultimate branding statement.

Maha, what’s your take on the Audi “prom” ad? I wrote about it in The Essential Truth in Audi’s Super Bowl Ad, which was not so much a critique of the ad as highlighting the fact that brands actually do change our self-perception. Several commenters thought the ad promoted the idea that it’s OK for a guy to force himself on an unconsenting woman. Though I admit I missed that angle on first viewing the ad, I can see where these commenters were coming from. Your thoughts?

Roger, Thanks for sharing that. I hadn’t seen that ad. It may have aired while I was getting a beer/stuffing my face with pizza/etc.

I think your commenters were onto something: the girl doesn’t consent, and worse, to my mind, it’s the *fact* that she didn’t consent that seems to make it exhilarating for the guy. This is coupled with the fact that the girl doesn’t react at all, doesn’t seem to have much in the way of agency, but her date (we are to presume) punches the protagonist out of possessive jealousy. Hardly the most empowering depiction of women.

As for Axe, hardly surprising, it’s true, but still worth calling out.

I think this article is desperately trying to make a story about out of nothing.

A men’s deodorant brand runs a competition to send some of it’s customers to space. I think it can reasonably assume the user of it’s products are men, right? As a woman, why is that an issue?

They have decided to create a hierarchy where astronaut trumps fireman or lifeguard/male model. As a woman, why would I find this an issue?

Maha, imagine you won a competition run by your favourite bra brand (assuming you wear a bra), and they sent you and all the other winners on a cruise in the Caribbean. Let’s say a couple guys were there, who didn’t wear bras and had no real interest in the brand outside of the competition. Is that what equality looks like to you?

As I mentioned before, this is such a non-issue. I didn’t find any problems with the ad, in fact, the only reason I stumbled across this article is because I was trying to find out more information about who made the ad (as I found it quite entertaining). Heck, the astronaut’s got my vote.

I am not going to indulge the comments about my sartorial choices – that borders nearly on harassment.

But you may wish to examine the follow-up post. Whether you find this offensive or not, running a contest that excludes one gender is illegal, no matter who the audience for your product is. http://www.forbes.com/sites/mahaatal/2013/02/08/unilever-revises-axe-contest-rules-amid-public-pressure-legal-concerns/ Axe announced today they are revising the rules to comply.

Well, actually, I don’t think it borders on harassment. If I believe your article choice is over-inflating an issue, I’m within my right to voice that opinion.

I really feel that too many people draw the sexism card too quickly and refuse to acknowledge that there are many men who desire to have sex with attractive women, and that’s OK.

If an ad suggests that attractive women are drawn to astronauts or to men who smell nice, therefore you might have a chance with an attractive women if you a) buy deodorant or b) win a competition to go to space, how is that offensive? Is it generalizing? Sure. Is it wrong? Well, I actually DO prefer men who smell nice and I’m sure I would find an astronaut just as fascinating as the next person.

I’m not saying this will always be the case, but I am saying that the ad is pretty harmless in the generalizations it makes or ideals it would like to perpetuate.

Back to the competition – it’s designed for it’s consumers. Is it suggesting the competition is for male entrants? Yes. Is the ad suggesting it’s products are for men? Yes. Does the company produce products for women? Very, very few and arguably unsuccessfully. But that’s not to say there isn’t a fan base of women who like men’s Axe deodorant who have never spent a cent with the company.

At the end of the day, I imagine Unilever would like to send into space a reflection of their Axe consumers, and furthermore a reflection of their brand. It just wouldn’t make sense to me if there are was an equal split of men and women if this doesn’t align with their brand, products or consumers. The competition is a marketing stunt, after all.

As a side note relating to your follow-up, you have mentioned ‘it’s possible that the Axe campaign qualifies as “abase ment of dignity…with the use of media”. If this is the case, then sure, I understand an attack on the company, a demand for policy change. But first of all – someone would need to prove that it is the case.

I’m not sure this has happened yet. There are a lot of people using the word ‘sexist’ in the comment section without explaining exactly how the competition or ad is offensive.

First, on sexism in the ads: there is nothing wrong with suggesting that people are attracted to one another, or even with selling your product as making the user more attractive. That’s a misunderstanding of what I’m complaining about. There IS a problem with suggesting that *only* men can be astronauts and women’s *only* role in relation to astronautics is to swoon over male astronauts. If you run multiple ads for a campaign (I’ve seen 3 different spots so far, not sure how many they’ve made), it’s not crazy to think one of them could feature a female astronaut, with a man wearing Axe to woo her. Given that we live in a world with a huge gap between men and women in science fields like astronautics, this depiction has real world consequences.

Second, on discrimination in the legal/regulatory sense. I spoke to several lawyers (one of whom is quoted in the piece) who said the competition qualified under local law in their markets. Discrimination is not defined the same way in all countries, and in some of the countries where the competition was being held, it’s simply not allowed for ANY company to hold a competition that isn’t equally open to both genders. No one has brought a case, and that’s why in my piece, I merely pointed out that to me, as well as to professionals in the field of law, the competition terms seemed to run afoul of those rules, quoting the relevant legal documents. I then brought these up to the company, who came back and said that upon consideration they would be changing their policies.

This is generally how most corporate regulatory violations – not just on discrimination, but on all kinds of issues – are handled. Very few instances turn into formal court complaints. Instead, someone (sometimes a lawyer, sometimes a customer, but very often a journalist) raises an issue to a company of ‘I read Such-and-Such Law Clause X and I think you’ve violated it,’ and the company changes the policy. Your suggestion that we shouldn’t write about legal concerns unless someone has definitely proved things one way or the other misunderstands how corporate law enforcement works.

Third, on the point of harassment – you are free to voice an opinion about this post, and as you see, I’m happy to engage with you on the ideas. What I’m not happy with, and what strikes me as harassment, is for you make comments like “if you wear [a bra].” That’s a personal comment about me, not about my post or my argument, and as such, profoundly inappropriate.

A) AXE is not NASA. A competition targeted towards men where they can win a trip to space does not correlate to men only becoming astronauts. If a woman wants to be an astronaut, she can be, and generally you don’t become one by winning competitions.

The point is that a woman going to space by winning a competition marketed by a men’s personal hygiene brand isn’t going to ‘empower women’ or create equality in the science field. It’s a competition and marketing stunt, not an internship at NASA.

If you’re serious about changing representations of women in science fields, why not target ads or competitions marketed towards women, pressuring them to turn their prizes into similar opportunities rather than ‘win a new wardrobe and personal stylist for life’ (for example).

B) Maybe I don’t know as much about corporate law as you do, but I might know a little more about advertising. The ad is 30 seconds long.

It will only include what it needs to in order to appeal to a target market, appeal to their desires, get the message across, and hopefully sell more products. It’s also expensive to make and run ads. Creating an ad featuring a woman as the competition winner will cater to a very, very small margin of their market, and to be honest, I can’t see how that would be a worthwhile investment unless the company intends to introduce more products geared towards women.

C) Does Miss Universe discriminate against men? Or the Super Bowl, against women? (I’m just asking, I don’t know the legalities of it)

D) I used bras as an example because this is similarly an intimate/gendered product, and because you are a fellow woman,I figured you might align with the analogy like I do. I did say ‘assuming you wear one’, not that you are obligated to, or that you are required to answer. Lucky I didn’t use a tampon company as an example.

I think by deeming that example as ‘inappropriate’ has highlighted how uncomfortable you are with talking about gendered/intimate products, which is fine. I’m sorry that you felt I was somehow intruding.

A) Sure. I don’t think a woman winning an AXE contest is going to change the world. That would be naive. I just think every little bit helps. And I agree completely about the nonsense women’s brands promote – win a wardrobe etc. When I encounter that stuff, I critique it too.

B) I wasn’t citing laws in relation to the 30-second advertisement. My critique of the ad as sexist is an opinion. Unilever, the company that owns AXE, has a corporate code of ethics, which explicitly bans sexism in advertising, and that may apply to the ad, if, like I do, you see the ad itself as sexist.

The legal issue is a separate one, to do with the contest terms and structure, which come under ‘marketing and advertising’ law because the contest itself is a promotion. I’m sorry if this distinction, between rules that govern the TV spot, and rules that govern the contest itself, was unclear.

C) No, because U.S. law does not include the kind of provision I was citing. The legal provisions I was citing are from other countries. They are relevant here because AXE is running this competition globally. When you do business globally you have to observe local laws in all the places your company does business, as well as the laws in the country where your company is based.

D) The analogy about a bra company was fine. It didn’t change my view, but I have no problem with your using it to make your view clearer. It was the specific reference to whether I wear one that felt unnecessary and inappropriately personal. Just the bit in the parentheses, in other words, not the whole analogy. But apology accepted.

This appears to me as a case of trying to find something to be upset about. As the company’s product is specifically geared towards men and more than likely insecure ones at that based of the trend of advertising campaigns, it should come as no surprise that they took this approach. They feed on males who believe that using this product will make them more attractive to the opposite sex. While you may disagree with this approach in general, it is simply an approach that works. An assumption that is a small jump away is that these men are insecure in which case it should not come as a surprise that sexism is something that relates to them and is therefore an effective way to reach them. While it is unfortunate that women have to see this, I do not feel it should not be something that infuriates them or makes them view this as anything more than the piper leading the crowd. Personally, when I first saw this ad during the superbowl, none of the women I was with found this offensive. If anything, they were able to find the same enjoyment in the “out-of-left-field” unexpected turn the ad took as the men did, albeit it is a very dumb sense of humor. I believe you make the error of weighing the trip to space sweepstakes equally with the ad campaign which I feel is clearly the more important for the promotion of the product line and the sweepstakes was merely a temporary supplement to their ad campaign. McDonalds does not depend on the prize in their happy meals as heavily as their ad campaigns. The fact that I am writing about this in July and still vividly remember the different astronaut commercials prove that, like it or not, the advertisers did a good job. As for the sexist implications you infer with regards to female astronauts and females following science professions, Neither I nor anyone of the large amount of people I have spoken with about these ads has ever jumped to the conclusion you did. It is 2013, we all know there can be female astronauts and that there are many prominent women across the spectrum of science related professions. Lastly, as your description states that you write about “political economy and foreign affairs”, I do not believe you know first hand about the challenges of women astronauts or women in various different fields of science. Whether you know about these plights second hand or are simply taking educated guesses about these challenges I do not know. I do not believe that either of these would, however, give you the justification for speaking so knowingly about these problems.